4 ms·

The comparisons provided are borderline non-sequiturs The C++ library and Chapel were solving the same problem, but Chapel (in the author's framing) did it bet

The comparisons provided are borderline non-sequiturs The C++ library and Chapel were solving the same problem, but Chapel (in the author's framing) did it better. Javascript and Typescript solve the same problem, but Typescript (in the view of people who care about type systems) does it better. Nushell is not trying to solve the same problems as a shell: > Nushell is really an interactive, data-focused scripting language with shell capabilities. Great, but that's not the problem I give a damn about. If I want an interactive, data-focused scripting language I will use Python. And against Python, Nushell is not nearly as attractive. Nushell is trying to blend two domains, shells and programming languages, which I see distinct advantages in keeping seperate. I do not want the world to be built on the back of shell scripts, regardless of how good you make the type system. I do not want to ask more of shell scripts and view that as a negative.

nirinor 3y ago
I use python extensively. I've used bash (+awk+xargs+sed...) extensively. Nushell is already a great improvement over bash _as a shell_. It is even better when using it to compose _preexisting text based programs_. I would say it is better in every way I can think of, except for: - not (yet) coming pre-installed, and - stability of interfaces and language. Its already better enough to be my default shell on my daily driver, though I keep bash around because some things really assume it. I very much look forward to one day having a userspace with no traditional shells at all. nushell is not yet a strict improvement over python, but it might one day be, and it is already better at: - munging text, json, dates and tables - quickly creating nice CLIs callable from the shell (even if that shell isn't nu!) - fun of programming in it > Nushell is trying to blend two domains, shells and programming languages, which I see distinct advantages in keeping seperate. Interesting, though, how many PL features the most popular shells tend to have... > I do not want the world to be built on the back of shell scripts, regardless of how good you make the type system. If I had read that before knowing nushell, I would strongly agree. Yet, it turns out you can make a shell so good I wouldn't mind if... not the world, but _a lot more_ was built on it.

nirinor 3y ago

I use python extensively. I've used bash (+awk+xargs+sed...) extensively. Nushell is already a great improvement over bash _as a shell_. It is even better when using it to compose _preexisting text based programs_. I would say it is better in every way I can think of, except for: - not (yet) coming pre-installed, and - stability of interfaces and language. Its already better enough to be my default shell on my daily driver, though I keep bash around because some things really assume it. I very much look forward to one day having a userspace with no traditional shells at all. nushell is not yet a strict improvement over python, but it might one day be, and it is already better at: - munging text, json, dates and tables - quickly creating nice CLIs callable from the shell (even if that shell isn't nu!) - fun of programming in it > Nushell is trying to blend two domains, shells and programming languages, which I see distinct advantages in keeping seperate. Interesting, though, how many PL features the most popular shells tend to have... > I do not want the world to be built on the back of shell scripts, regardless of how good you make the type system. If I had read that before knowing nushell, I would strongly agree. Yet, it turns out you can make a shell so good I wouldn't mind if... not the world, but _a lot more_ was built on it.